Viewpoint Wiki - All Viewpoints, No Gatekeepers

Advocates of the federalism viewpoint on the Voting Rights Act (VRA) contend that its interpretation should prioritize principles of state sovereignty and cooperative federalism, rather than expansive federal oversight. This perspective is held by conservative legal scholars, some Republican policymakers, and states' rights advocates who argue that the VRA's preclearance requirements under Section 5 overstepped constitutional boundaries by imposing disproportionate burdens on certain jurisdictions without adequate justification for modern conditions. Proponents assert that election regulation should primarily reside with state governments, with federal intervention limited to cases of clear and demonstrable violations of voting rights.

Supporters of this viewpoint argue that the VRA's original framework, particularly Section 5's preclearance requirements, reflected urgent historical circumstances in 1965 but became outdated as conditions improved. They contend that the federal government's expansive role in reviewing state election laws violated principles of federalism by treating states unequally without sufficient evidence of ongoing discrimination. The 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder demonstrated that blanket federal oversight was no longer justified.

Advocates also hold that states should have primary authority over election administration, as local governments are better positioned to address their specific communities' needs without undue federal interference. They argue that Section 2 of the VRA-prohibiting racial discrimination in voting-remains a sufficient safeguard against voter suppression when properly enforced by the courts. Updating or repealing outdated provisions, they contend, would restore a more balanced federal-state relationship while maintaining protections against discrimination.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, emphasizing that Congress had failed to justify the continued necessity of preclearance for certain jurisdictions. Senator Mitch McConnell has consistently advocated for reducing federal voting rights oversight, arguing that states should have greater flexibility in managing elections. Professor Michael M. Uhlmann of the Claremont Institute wrote extensively on constitutional federalism, critiquing expansive federal intervention in state election law and advocating for reform of the VRA's preclearance provisions.

The Heritage Foundation has published reports arguing that Section 5 preclearance was overly burdensome and no longer necessary, while the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) has supported repealing preclearance in favor of targeted enforcement under Section 2. Senator Ted Cruz defended the decision on federalism grounds, asserting that the VRA's original framework had become ineffective.

- Voting Rights Act Of 1965 - voting-rights-act-1965-originalist-viewpoint - shelby-county-v-holder-history - legal-consensus-on-vra-preclearance-post-shelby - section-2-of-the-voting-rights-act-mechanism

1. John G. Roberts, Jr., “Shelby County v. Holder,” 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 2. Michael M. Uhlmann, writings on constitutional federalism and voting rights (Claremont Institute); see Claremont Review of Books, various issues 2001–2019. 3. Heritage Foundation, *The Case for Repealing Section 5 of the VRA* (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2012). 4. American Civil Rights Union, *Beyond Preclearance: A New Era in Voting Rights Enforcement* (Alexandria, VA: ACRU, 2013). 5. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, *Hearing on “From Selma to Shelby County: Working Together to Restore the Protections of the Voting Rights Act”*, 113th Cong., 1st sess., 2013.